aeon

'The Vulcan' post='2943884' date='2009-08-15 09:27:25']

All this science is hard work!

Yes it is, but only after the hard work you can claim a "scientific fact"

The one BIG issue with film is iso rating. I really appreciate the flexibility using digital. I know XP2 can be rated at anything between 50-800 iso - BUT NOT ON THE SAME ROLL!

I agree, also the grain issue against noise (digital) is space for another debate, but each medium has it's pro and cons

And the Colour v B+W issue

I'm not convinced that converting colour to B+W in film use, is as good as shooting B+W "straight" and the number of times I've loaded the wrong medium really is annoying. In fact, with my 35mm film stuff, I now have two Contax G bodies to counter this. One loaded colour (slide) and the other B+W. Fortunately, these bodies are cheap enough now to do this. Again, with my MF I load up two backs accordingly. Problem solved you may think ..................BUT I'M CARRYING A LOT MORE AROUND

Digital wins hands down here. One body, any iso and colour/B+W up to you.

I agree, I don't think is the same, but I will underline that another advantage of converting color raw data to B & W is the ability to play with 3 separate luminances ( r,g,b ) while in straight B & W are lost (or merged). But this for the more traditional B & W shooters will sounds as a blasphemy, so I will not go deep on this argument, I will take this advantages for me

I laugh when I see guys complaining about the weight of a G10 compact!

Another thing, silly as this sounds, I get more satisfaction from p***ing about with film. Digital requires no effort in pp really and it seems so clinical albeit the image is there as required. Now, with film, I really have to work. Dev it in a darkroom (or wait a week for the lab), carefully dust and clean the negs, scan it, (8 minutes per image ) spot it, and then I'm finally ready to work on it. But after all that, it just seems more satisfying because I DID IT, not some technician in the Canon factory (if you follow my reasoning). Of course, you need time on your hands which I've got. It's a no-brainer why the industry applauded digital in this respect. But, given the time, I'll take satisfaction against speed any day.

I agree, the sense of satisfaction for doing it yourself is one of the most pleasant feeling in photography together with the visual result (maybe because they are related).

I follow your reasoning but even in digital world you get the same satisfactions, I spend less money in my tests, but not less time, I spend quite a lot of time (and I am not talking of photoshop work or any retouch) of course with the same amount of time you can work on much more images.

No technician in canon or wherever do the work for you, they research and develops (and most important for them "sell") tools that you use according to your creative and technical needs, in the same way for example as fuji or kodak technicians create film negative for you (they did a tool).

No brainers are in every field, they are essential for the big amount of money companies they makes with them, and I will add that even behind urban legends there are economic reasons, so always do your own investigation and researches.

One massive plus for film (at last) is when I upload to my libraries. My 6x6 images stand out a country mile on their website. Sitting next to the tiny little 35m equivalent they sure do catch your eye. Might not be better shots, but you'll sure see 'em

As I agreed on previous posts, on resolution is still film the winner, digital is very close on that, with some expensive product digital is higher than 35mm film, but far away if compared to 6x6 images.

Dynamic range is much more on sensors, there are no doubt on this!

Prints from digital, normally are lower quality than film (less colors), but there are great tools out there too, and if you know how to bring all the data you captured from your sensor without clamping or compress the ranges of colors (and is not so simple because you are unable to see them on traditional monitors), down until the print process, you can get fine prints.

And that's what I want

That is the important thing to consider when choosing between film or sensor, people need to ask themselves what they need or want, otherwise is like claiming english language is better than spanish...

What is funny is to hear people claiming that traditional photography has more years of experience compared to digital, not considering that the companies behind the two are almost the same and that the experience, research, technologies are transfered from film to digital.

There are other advantages on digital or in film as well (how many depend on the photographer needs and skills).

Enjoy whatever you feel is better for you, this is my way of considering things.

P.s.: talking so much of colors, I messed up

See you're also looking for a reliable colour darkroom, which is very hard to find now.

HDR beats film no hands down

What's the difference in shooting 3/5 bracketed exposures on digital and the same on film, then scanning in the latter to create HDR?

The difference is there's more detail and tonal range to play with in the film shots.

And that's a scientific fact!

p.s. we won't talk about cost though

just to keep the debate still on (scientifically):

"There seems to be an urban legend that says digital cameras have less dynamic range than film. The legend is wrong. The above plot shows the comparison of a DSLR with print and slide film. The slide film records only about 5 photographic stops of information (a stop is a factor of 2, so 5 stops is 32). The print film shows about 7 stops of information. The digital camera shows at least 10 stops of information (this test was limited to 10 stops). Other tests show the Canon 1D Mark II camera has about 11.6 stops of information (a range of 3100 in intensity). Other DSLR cameras, like the Canon 10D have around 11 stops. Point and shoot digital cameras, somewhat less."

sources:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/fil...l.summary1.html

and a practical test:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

As The Vulcan said is not for printing so i doubt they need wider color gamut spaces, in any case converting into a wider color space will not gain more colors as the actual one not contains more information, unless you scan again or process the raw directly into the wider color space.

The proof colors are relatively accurate as depends also on the quality and colors of your monitor, I agree with runker, check what color space they need, but of course what they will see is not what you see, unless you have the same monitor, same settings, and same color profile as the other viewers. My suggestion is to color calibrate your monitor first.

For the camera raw window opening on loading jpgs there should be a settings button on the same window and you can disable to open itself when loading jpg and tiff files.

as an amateur capable of taking decent enough shots i went digital about 5 years ago, purely so that i could carry a camera around in my pocket rather than have to lug a big slr and lenses around.

i soon found that my photography suffered, the throwaway images of a digital made me lazy and the complicated menus on even the smallest digital cameras are time consuming and take the eye away from the viewfinder.

i missed my filter kit , the sound of the shutter and fiddling with my lightmeter(nostalgia), i longed for the relative simplicity of the controls of my nikon fm2 and f-80. most of all i missed the wonderful shots i got with my 20mm prime.

i dont like altering images digitally, i just feel that they are not really the same as the photo i took, i crop and maybe tone the colours a bit, but that is all.

to buy a digital slr that can use the 20mm lens to its full extent will cost me more than i am prepared to spend and so i have recently dug out the old f-80 ( sadly i sold the fm), bought a few rolls of 200asa, and i'm working my way through the handbook and rediscovering the joys of using that old beast.

this is a great thread by the way.

why don't get a single use cheap plastic film camera? is lighter, you can easily carry around and throw away after use.

If you are interested in serious photography don't get a pocket digital camera.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-c...t-printers.html

interesting article

I just love looking into a 6x6 viewfinder and seeing that big bright image

Film makes a difference to the image in the viewfinder???????????

Miracles never cease.

Yep, they don't do a WLF in prosumer Dslr's yet!

No WLF they have a real time display, exposure preview, grid in thirds, and without the need to bend yourself in an uncomfortable positions.

abstract with water

canon 40d, 250mm f5.6 1/6sec iso200

3. The new digital cameras have more details in the photo than film as they record far more than 2048x1556 pixels, and more details show superior sharpness in print

I know really well that new cameras record more pixels, but 2048x1556 (when you use the full 35mm frame) is the standard resolution used to record from digital to film in motion picture industry, I was talking about movies, not still photography.

Well economically film is so unconvenient that probably becoming poor, some serious photographers start to see in black and white, that's why they see realism in black and white photography.

I call originals also the raw files, they do not degrade (just the media degrade, as is a negative), you can do copies if necessary, and many more advantages such as process your raw data differently, something not possible with negative.

The situation is comparable to vinyl records and cds, some still spend fortunes on hi-fi systems because there are less frequencies in digital sound, but they never consider the background noise of those records.

Shooting in RAW capture capture much more details than jpg, and you can really make an image very tonal with a single RAW processed correctly. I see much more contrast and tonal ranges on a post processed RAW then I've ever seen on a film.

totally agree, a raw data contains much more tonal ranges than a film negative.

No it doesn't.

Film is scientifically proven to contain MUCH more tonal range and detail than the current Dslr sensors.

Film superiority is mostly attributed to chemistry. Film grains are much smaller than photosites on the CCD/CMOS sensor (or pixels in digital image). A silver halide grain can be as small as 0.1 micron compared to 10 microns for a pixel. What's there to fight?

Another thing is that grains are diffused into film, layer upon layer. Grains often partly overlap each other but they are more tightly packed than photosites/pixels. Hence, film would register more detail.

In fact, Kodak says that ISO100-200 film is at least 24 megapixels equivalency of digital. Popular Photography magazine tested ISO100 film to be equivalent to 40 megapixels.

There was a scientific research paper by AFIP that reported ISO100-200 film having about 54 megapixels.

Print films (negative films) have the widest exposure latitude; wider than slide films. Some articles say negative films have up to 7 stops of latitude! Slide films has about 3 stops. Digital is also about 3 stops. I can't do the maths to tell you how many stops of latitude the human eye has (because it's a hel_l lot of latitude) but negative film would produce images most similar to human vision.

It's not very difficult to suspect why Hollywood movies are still shot on 35mm film. Watch the end credits for proof. For your information, motion picture film is mostly rated ISO250 and ISO500, and are still capable of being projected on to a large screen more than 100x it's original frame size.

I didn't talk about resolution or details, on that I agree film is still higher now (not for long I guess), and also depends on how far you can consider acceptable an image.

Anyway 54 megapixel sounds like a joke for me, try to extract a 2000x2000 pixels image from that 54 megapixel scanned image and try to print or project it, and you understand what I am talking about.

Shooting raw files at 14bit you get an extra +2ev and -2ev (so if you do the math is not 3 stops) to add to the range captured with the normal exposure, and you can play with these values at any time, but what I think you are not taking in consideration is how much you sacrifice developing the negative.

Human vision I think is over 24 stops or more, I can't remember, but you can't see all these ranges together, your vision will adjust automatically to "expose" for what you are focusing on.

Working on hollywood movies I can say that most are still filmed but there are some steps into digital even on the bigscreen, watch the upcoming peter jackson's movie shoot in digital.

Even a digital image of 2048x1556 pixels (equivalent to a full gate 35mm film) when reversed into film is projected on a large screen more than 100x it's original frame size.

Shooting in RAW capture capture much more details than jpg, and you can really make an image very tonal with a single RAW processed correctly. I see much more contrast and tonal ranges on a post processed RAW then I've ever seen on a film.

totally agree, a raw data contains much more tonal ranges than a film negative.

4

Quite interesting; didn't see one like this before:

Place your cursor at the top of the photo; better left or right for good visual effect!

You will notice it is 6:10 PM. Bring the mouse down slowly over the photo without pressing the button on the mouse. No right or left clicks.

Night time appears, the lights come on, and at 7:40 PM, it's dark! Photo Technology at its best!

http://61226.com/share/hk.swf

LaoPo

is just a mix between 2 photos by mouse position, is not changing the light in between, nothing fancy there.

If it's that simple you must be able to show the Thaivisa audience some more examples of non-fancy images with the same result.....?

I'll have a or two ..waiting for your image(s)

LaoPo

I hope you don't get sleepless with too much coffee just because I am busy. Anyway you can see that stuff more often since the popularity of java applets, that are pretty old now.

here is a matter of politeness, maybe they don't want to make the sri lankan to loose his face

Quite interesting; didn't see one like this before:

Place your cursor at the top of the photo; better left or right for good visual effect!

You will notice it is 6:10 PM. Bring the mouse down slowly over the photo without pressing the button on the mouse. No right or left clicks.

Night time appears, the lights come on, and at 7:40 PM, it's dark! Photo Technology at its best!

http://61226.com/share/hk.swf

LaoPo

is just a mix between 2 photos by mouse position, is not changing the light in between, nothing fancy there.

maybe is a trick to discriminate against taksin supporters

if you enjoy doing macro in wild life I suggest you a tele-zoom 55-250 (very cheap, I paid 8300 thb for it) not extremely fast lens but good quality for this price, very useful to bring around and good range of focal lenght. Or you can spend more and get a better kit, but don't buy one without image stabilizer, you will really regret if you don't carry your tripod with you all the time. Add an extension tube and you will be able to focus very near and get a very narrow depth of field, I use the canon EF25 II, it is around 5500 thb but you can use the auto focus. If you don't need AF just go for another very cheap compatible extension tube, on ebay you will find kit of 3 sizes at extremely low prices.

5

The cat will take longer to rot or maybe just get dry because of people thought influencing the body fluids, as experimented by japanese reserchers.

And there was me thinking that a one-eyed dried-up pussy would have no use.

It can be used scientifically or superstitiously, depends on the efficiency of the grey matter of who handle it.

Thank you for your kind advice. Next time I'm in such a situation, I'll know what to do.

welcome, first advice is free of charge

The cat will take longer to rot or maybe just get dry because of people thought influencing the body fluids, as experimented by japanese reserchers.

And there was me thinking that a one-eyed dried-up pussy would have no use.

It can be used scientifically or superstitiously, depends on the efficiency of the grey matter of who handle it.

The cat will take longer to rot or maybe just get dry because of people thought influencing the body fluids, as experimented by japanese reserchers.

One small step for man, a big step for mankind, a huge run and hide for photography. ( joking )

title: Ages

second title: I scream (if you touch me)

caption

CLOSE YOUR EYES MY FRIEND, WE ARE OVEREXPOSED!